"We’re told by a new source that a new generation of full-frame CMOS sensors slated for both a forthcoming mirrorless camera as well as updated versions of the current range of prosumer DLSR models."

So the first thing that comes to mind is that this does not mention professional (1D range, etc) DSLR models.

Thus either this rumor is a hoax (why would Canon not want to reduce the cost of sensors made for the top end?) or there is a sacrifice in sensor IQ being made in exchange for something else (DPAF maybe?)

Canon often introduces new features in lower end cameras, DPAF being an example.

Even simpler to explain how full frame could work, with unclipped corners, using the M mount: the imaging light is projected from the lens to the sensor from the last element at the back of the lens, which is, I think, always situated slightly behind the plane of the lens mount, not at or in front of the plane of the lens mount. Simple. All other explanations are surely true, but none, other than the above, is necessary.

The highlighted statement is not true. For example, the 600/4L IS II that I was out shooting with this afternoon has a rear element that's recessed several centimeters inside the barrel of the lens when viewed from the mount side.

1. What yield improvement were you thinking of that is of no benefit to APS-C sized sensors?

2. If it is of benefit to APS-C sized sensors, why apply it only to full frame sensors? Surely you apply the technology that improves yield to the production line that has the highest production levels (i.e. APS-C), not the one with the lowest?

EXACTLY!

Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and save $10 each and thats a billion dollars....Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $40 each and thats 200 million dollars....

Which pile of money do you think Canon would go for first

Not exactly…

It depends on what the improvement is and how much it costs to implement. The rumor (although likely false) suggests an improvement in yield, which is where there's a major difference between FF and APS-C. Sensors are cut from round silicon wafers, and according to Canon a single wafer can produce 20 FF sensors or ~200 APS-C sensors.

How about a hypothetical example… Say it costs $20,000 for the raw silicon wafer and the stamping and cutting (I have no idea how wild-assed that guess is). That means a FF sensor costs $1000 and an APS-C sensor costs $100. Now, say there are on average two random local defects per wafer that result in the loss of the sensors where they occur. FF production takes a 10% hit on yield, whereas APS-C takes only a 1% hit on yield. Taking QC defects into account, the cost of a FF sensor is $1111 and an APS-C sensor is $101. Now, suppose this new process cuts the defect rate in half, to one per wafer, and increases production costs by 2% per wafer. That drops the cost of a FF sensor to $1074, a 3.3% savings. However, that 'improvement' results in an APS-C cost per sensor of $102.50, an increase of 1.5% per sensor for APS-C production.

Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $37 each and that's a 185 million dollar profit….Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and spend an extra $1.50 each and that's a 150 million dollar loss....

Now which pile of money do you think Canon would go for first?

Granted, this is only a hypothetical example. Hwever, it does demonstrate one scenario in which application of a process improvement for FF production would not be cost-effective when applied to APS-C production.

I agree. I've never understood people's fascination with using a FF sensor in an M-mount camera. It always seemed more reasonable to just shorten the flange-sensor distance and use the EF mount. Just getting rid of the mirror box will allow significant size and weight reductions. I don't see how the M-mount would make that much of a difference.

EF (and EF-S) lenses are designed with a 44mm flange focal distance. If Canon makes a FF mirrorless with that same flange focal distance, they'll use the same mount. If they make one with a shorter flange focal distance (it's 18mm for EF-M lenses, for example), they'll make a new mount for the same reason they designed the system so EF-S lenses don't mount on FF bodies - to avoid confusion and unexpected results. They might try squeezing the FF mount into the EF-M size, so that the new FF-mirrorless lenses could be used directly on EOS M or other APS-C mirrorless, in the same way that EF lenses can be used on APS-C dSLRs. In particular, it the whole ecosystem does shift to mirrorless, longer lenses don't really benefit from a smaller image circle, so having a mount compatible with larger and smaller sensors makes sense.

I thought the reason that EF-S lenses can't mount on FF bodies is because EF-S lenses may extend further into the body, and there was the risk that the mirror in the FF body would hit the rear of the lens. Nikon and third party manufacturers don't seem worried about confusing the customer. Their APS-C lenses fit onto FF bodies just fine. Also, given that the M-mount and EF-mount aren't all that different in size, your last point seems to argue that the M-mount shouldn't have been invented at all. The SL1 would seem to support that argument.

However, for whatever reason, the M-mount was invented. If Canon shortens the flange distance to create a mirrorless EF mount, they could shorten it to something longer than the 18mm used for the M-mount, perhaps 24mm. That way, they could introduce an adapter allowing FF mirrorless lenses to be used on an M-system body. Furthermore, Canon could (and should) introduce their answer to the Metabones Speed Booster, allowing EF lenses to be used on an M-body. Because of the 1.6X crop factor, Canon's speed booster could provide a 1-1/3 stop advantage, although the device would probably have to be very high quality and consequently very expensive to provide good image quality in the corners.

It depends on what the improvement is and how much it costs to implement. The rumor (although likely false) suggests an improvement in yield, which is where there's a major difference between FF and APS-C. Sensors are cut from round silicon wafers, and according to Canon a single wafer can produce 20 FF sensors or ~200 APS-C sensors.

HMM! This is interesting. If Canon is producing ~200 APS-C sensors per wafer, and only 20 FF sensors per wafer, then that means they are already producing APS-C sensors on 300mm wafers, but are still producing FF sensors on 200mm wafers. If you run the numbers, the raw number of full APS-C sensors on a 200mm wafer is 94, on 300mm wafer is 212; the raw number for full Ff sensors on 200mm wafer is 36, on 300mm wafer is 81. Factor in losses, you get a bit less than 200 APS-C/300mm wafer, maybe 20 FF/200mm wafer. I suspect that the actual number of total FF sensors is less than 36, since every time I've seen a photo of large sensors on a wafer, there is usually plenty of blank space and an unetched border around the edge. So maybe Canon gets 190 APS-C out of a 300mm wafer, and indeed only about 20 FF out of a 200mm wafer. Assuming similar losses with larger wafers, Canon should get almost 70 FF sensors out of a 300mm wafer if they do indeed make the move.

How about a hypothetical example… Say it costs $20,000 for the raw silicon wafer and the stamping and cutting (I have no idea how wild-assed that guess is). That means a FF sensor costs $1000 and an APS-C sensor costs $100. Now, say there are on average two random local defects per wafer that result in the loss of the sensors where they occur. FF production takes a 10% hit on yield, whereas APS-C takes only a 1% hit on yield. Taking QC defects into account, the cost of a FF sensor is $1111 and an APS-C sensor is $101. Now, suppose this new process cuts the defect rate in half, to one per wafer, and increases production costs by 2% per wafer. That drops the cost of a FF sensor to $1074, a 3.3% savings. However, that 'improvement' results in an APS-C cost per sensor of $102.50, an increase of 1.5% per sensor for APS-C production.

Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $37 each and that's a 185 million dollar profit….Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and spend an extra $1.50 each and that's a 150 million dollar loss....

Now which pile of money do you think Canon would go for first?

Granted, this is only a hypothetical example. Hwever, it does demonstrate one scenario in which application of a process improvement for FF production would not be cost-effective when applied to APS-C production.

I totally agree. I think increasing yield on the FF sensor front is really where they can save the most money, especially if they are still using 200mm wafers. They have to waste a proportionally much larger area of a 200mm wafer than a 300mm wafer when fabbing FF sensors.

It depends on what the improvement is and how much it costs to implement. The rumor (although likely false) suggests an improvement in yield, which is where there's a major difference between FF and APS-C. Sensors are cut from round silicon wafers, and according to Canon a single wafer can produce 20 FF sensors or ~200 APS-C sensors.

HMM! This is interesting. If Canon is producing ~200 APS-C sensors per wafer, and only 20 FF sensors per wafer, then that means they are already producing APS-C sensors on 300mm wafers, but are still producing FF sensors on 200mm wafers. If you run the numbers, the raw number of full APS-C sensors on a 200mm wafer is 94, on 300mm wafer is 212; the raw number for full Ff sensors on 200mm wafer is 36, on 300mm wafer is 81. Factor in losses, you get a bit less than 200 APS-C/300mm wafer, maybe 20 FF/200mm wafer. I suspect that the actual number of total FF sensors is less than 36, since every time I've seen a photo of large sensors on a wafer, there is usually plenty of blank space and an unetched border around the edge. So maybe Canon gets 190 APS-C out of a 300mm wafer, and indeed only about 20 FF out of a 200mm wafer. Assuming similar losses with larger wafers, Canon should get almost 70 FF sensors out of a 300mm wafer if they do indeed make the move.

How about a hypothetical example… Say it costs $20,000 for the raw silicon wafer and the stamping and cutting (I have no idea how wild-assed that guess is). That means a FF sensor costs $1000 and an APS-C sensor costs $100. Now, say there are on average two random local defects per wafer that result in the loss of the sensors where they occur. FF production takes a 10% hit on yield, whereas APS-C takes only a 1% hit on yield. Taking QC defects into account, the cost of a FF sensor is $1111 and an APS-C sensor is $101. Now, suppose this new process cuts the defect rate in half, to one per wafer, and increases production costs by 2% per wafer. That drops the cost of a FF sensor to $1074, a 3.3% savings. However, that 'improvement' results in an APS-C cost per sensor of $102.50, an increase of 1.5% per sensor for APS-C production.

Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $37 each and that's a 185 million dollar profit….Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and spend an extra $1.50 each and that's a 150 million dollar loss....

Now which pile of money do you think Canon would go for first?

Granted, this is only a hypothetical example. Hwever, it does demonstrate one scenario in which application of a process improvement for FF production would not be cost-effective when applied to APS-C production.

I totally agree. I think increasing yield on the FF sensor front is really where they can save the most money, especially if they are still using 200mm wafers. They have to waste a proportionally much larger area of a 200mm wafer than a 300mm wafer when fabbing FF sensors.

I think your cost estimate of $1000 for a FF sensor is way off....

A 6D RETAILS for $1600....The dealer is probably paying $1000 to 1200 for it....Canon wants to make a healthy profit, so it probably costs less than $200 to make. (Remember, they need to pay wages, heat, light, R+D, etc etc etc)Then there are all the other components involved.... so even if we say the sensor is a quqrter of the cost of the finished camera, that's $50....

I read somewhere.. (sorry, I can't find it) that it costs Sony $30 to make a FF sensor and about $7 to make a crop sensor.... I don't know how this translates to Canon costs, but you can bet it isn't $1000 and $100..

No doubt, thus the mention of the per wafer cost being a WAG (wild-asset guess). It was a relative example, the absolute numbers didn't matter.

Jon's point about different wafer sizes changes the the relative numbers, of course, but the main point remains - there are possible scenarios where a process change could decrease production costs for FF sensors but not for APS-C sensors, because of the differential effect of random blemishes with FF sensors that are 2.6 times the size of APS-C sensors.

No doubt, thus the mention of the per wafer cost being a WAG (wild-asset guess). It was a relative example, the absolute numbers didn't matter.

Jon's point about different wafer sizes changes the the relative numbers, of course, but the main point remains - there are possible scenarios where a process change could decrease production costs for FF sensors but not for APS-C sensors, because of the differential effect of random blemishes with FF sensors that are 2.6 times the size of APS-C sensors.

I would guess at a wafer cost is in the range of $2000, given the technology nodes in play (180-500nm)For the differences in cost structure, see my previous explanation.

Well there you go! The reason the 7D2 has been delayed so long is that it will be a full frame mirrorless dual pixel quad pixel fovenon big megapixel camera with a 1DX build in an EOS-M package.... that will shoot at ISO 819,200 and take 8K video.....

+1 !! The best part is it will feature a camera and computer monitor built into eyeglasses, since nobody has ever thought of doing that before! Even harder to believe, but the sensor will be 4x5 inches! You wear it on your belt, the light is transferred to it via fiber optics that are one trillionth the diameter of a human hair!

but on a serious (somewhat) note, we now have the technology to make the "Dick Tracey radio wristwatch" with video....

The problem is now, though...Dick Tracey, didn't take pictures of his...well you know. He only used the technology to fight crime.

It depends on what the improvement is and how much it costs to implement. The rumor (although likely false) suggests an improvement in yield, which is where there's a major difference between FF and APS-C. Sensors are cut from round silicon wafers, and according to Canon a single wafer can produce 20 FF sensors or ~200 APS-C sensors.

HMM! This is interesting. If Canon is producing ~200 APS-C sensors per wafer, and only 20 FF sensors per wafer, then that means they are already producing APS-C sensors on 300mm wafers, but are still producing FF sensors on 200mm wafers. If you run the numbers, the raw number of full APS-C sensors on a 200mm wafer is 94, on 300mm wafer is 212; the raw number for full Ff sensors on 200mm wafer is 36, on 300mm wafer is 81. Factor in losses, you get a bit less than 200 APS-C/300mm wafer, maybe 20 FF/200mm wafer. I suspect that the actual number of total FF sensors is less than 36, since every time I've seen a photo of large sensors on a wafer, there is usually plenty of blank space and an unetched border around the edge. So maybe Canon gets 190 APS-C out of a 300mm wafer, and indeed only about 20 FF out of a 200mm wafer. Assuming similar losses with larger wafers, Canon should get almost 70 FF sensors out of a 300mm wafer if they do indeed make the move.

How about a hypothetical example… Say it costs $20,000 for the raw silicon wafer and the stamping and cutting (I have no idea how wild-assed that guess is). That means a FF sensor costs $1000 and an APS-C sensor costs $100. Now, say there are on average two random local defects per wafer that result in the loss of the sensors where they occur. FF production takes a 10% hit on yield, whereas APS-C takes only a 1% hit on yield. Taking QC defects into account, the cost of a FF sensor is $1111 and an APS-C sensor is $101. Now, suppose this new process cuts the defect rate in half, to one per wafer, and increases production costs by 2% per wafer. That drops the cost of a FF sensor to $1074, a 3.3% savings. However, that 'improvement' results in an APS-C cost per sensor of $102.50, an increase of 1.5% per sensor for APS-C production.

Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $37 each and that's a 185 million dollar profit….Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and spend an extra $1.50 each and that's a 150 million dollar loss....

Now which pile of money do you think Canon would go for first?

Granted, this is only a hypothetical example. Hwever, it does demonstrate one scenario in which application of a process improvement for FF production would not be cost-effective when applied to APS-C production.

I totally agree. I think increasing yield on the FF sensor front is really where they can save the most money, especially if they are still using 200mm wafers. They have to waste a proportionally much larger area of a 200mm wafer than a 300mm wafer when fabbing FF sensors.

They never mention a 12 inch wafer, they say they get 200 ASP-C sensors of an 8 inch wafer.Quote from the white paper:

an 8" diameter wafer could cost as much as $450 to $500, $1,000 or even $5,000. After several hundred process steps, perhaps between 400 and 600 (including, for example, thin film deposition, lithography, photoresist coating and alignment, exposure, developing, etching and cleaning), one has a wafer covered with sensors. If the sensors are APS-C size, there are about 200 of them on the wafer, depending on layout and the design of the periphery of each sensor. For APS-H, there are about 46 or so. Full-frame sensors? Just 20.

8 inch is 8*2.54mm = 203.2 mmThe total surface area of this wafer is π/4*203.2^2 = 32429 mm^2

Surface area of ASP-C => 330mm^232429/330=98.3Even if they didn’t have any losses they wouldn’t get 100 sensors.

Surface area of FF => 864mm^232429/864=37.5

If they can only get 20 FF sensors out of that, they have about 47% losses.

This is an 8 year old white paper and nobody mentioned these mistakes before?

It depends on what the improvement is and how much it costs to implement. The rumor (although likely false) suggests an improvement in yield, which is where there's a major difference between FF and APS-C. Sensors are cut from round silicon wafers, and according to Canon a single wafer can produce 20 FF sensors or ~200 APS-C sensors.

HMM! This is interesting. If Canon is producing ~200 APS-C sensors per wafer, and only 20 FF sensors per wafer, then that means they are already producing APS-C sensors on 300mm wafers, but are still producing FF sensors on 200mm wafers. If you run the numbers, the raw number of full APS-C sensors on a 200mm wafer is 94, on 300mm wafer is 212; the raw number for full Ff sensors on 200mm wafer is 36, on 300mm wafer is 81. Factor in losses, you get a bit less than 200 APS-C/300mm wafer, maybe 20 FF/200mm wafer. I suspect that the actual number of total FF sensors is less than 36, since every time I've seen a photo of large sensors on a wafer, there is usually plenty of blank space and an unetched border around the edge. So maybe Canon gets 190 APS-C out of a 300mm wafer, and indeed only about 20 FF out of a 200mm wafer. Assuming similar losses with larger wafers, Canon should get almost 70 FF sensors out of a 300mm wafer if they do indeed make the move.

How about a hypothetical example… Say it costs $20,000 for the raw silicon wafer and the stamping and cutting (I have no idea how wild-assed that guess is). That means a FF sensor costs $1000 and an APS-C sensor costs $100. Now, say there are on average two random local defects per wafer that result in the loss of the sensors where they occur. FF production takes a 10% hit on yield, whereas APS-C takes only a 1% hit on yield. Taking QC defects into account, the cost of a FF sensor is $1111 and an APS-C sensor is $101. Now, suppose this new process cuts the defect rate in half, to one per wafer, and increases production costs by 2% per wafer. That drops the cost of a FF sensor to $1074, a 3.3% savings. However, that 'improvement' results in an APS-C cost per sensor of $102.50, an increase of 1.5% per sensor for APS-C production.

Sell 5,000,000 FF cameras and save $37 each and that's a 185 million dollar profit….Sell 100,000,000 APSC cameras and spend an extra $1.50 each and that's a 150 million dollar loss....

Now which pile of money do you think Canon would go for first?

Granted, this is only a hypothetical example. Hwever, it does demonstrate one scenario in which application of a process improvement for FF production would not be cost-effective when applied to APS-C production.

I totally agree. I think increasing yield on the FF sensor front is really where they can save the most money, especially if they are still using 200mm wafers. They have to waste a proportionally much larger area of a 200mm wafer than a 300mm wafer when fabbing FF sensors.

They never mention a 12 inch wafer, they say they get 200 ASP-C sensors of an 8 inch wafer.Quote from the white paper:

an 8" diameter wafer could cost as much as $450 to $500, $1,000 or even $5,000. After several hundred process steps, perhaps between 400 and 600 (including, for example, thin film deposition, lithography, photoresist coating and alignment, exposure, developing, etching and cleaning), one has a wafer covered with sensors. If the sensors are APS-C size, there are about 200 of them on the wafer, depending on layout and the design of the periphery of each sensor. For APS-H, there are about 46 or so. Full-frame sensors? Just 20.

8 inch is 8*2.54mm = 203.2 mmThe total surface area of this wafer is π/4*203.2^2 = 32429 mm^2

Surface area of ASP-C => 330mm^232429/330=98.3Even if they didn’t have any losses they wouldn’t get 100 sensors.

Surface area of FF => 864mm^232429/864=47.41

If they can only get 20 FF sensors out of that, they have about 58% losses.

This is an 8 year old white paper and nobody mentioned these mistakes before?

That's very interesting if indeed that does translate to about 58% (or 47% !!) full frame sensor losses per wafer, even if it was 8 years ago.

If they can only get 20 FF sensors out of that, they have about 58% losses.

This is an 8 year old white paper and nobody mentioned these mistakes before?

That's very interesting if indeed that does translate to about 58% full frame sensor losses per wafer, even if it was 8 years ago.

I made a mistake (maybe Canon has a job offer ;-)), corrected it in my last post. It should be

Surface area of FF => 864mm^232429/864=37.5

If they can only get 20 FF sensors out of that, they have about 47% losses.

It isn't exactly 47% loss. It's 64% of the area is actually used to print FF sensors. If this diagram is any indication, then they actually ETCH exactly 24FF, or 80APSC on a single 200mm wafer:

The actual losses would be out these numbers...so accounting for defects and whatnot, actual FF yield would have to be less than 24, and actual APS-C yield would have to be less than 80. Assuming they actually get 20 FF out of 24, the loss is 16.7%.

That assumes that the article was clear about the size of wafer used to produce APS-C sensors...which it is not. Since a 300mm wafer can handle about 212 APS-C sensors, and since the article states that around 200 APS-C sensors are made from each wafer, it makes sense that Canon is manufacturing APS-C sensors on 300mm wafers, rather than 200mm wafers. Either way, they clearly have a higher yield off smaller sensors.